Author Topic: Did you vote?  (Read 12052 times)

  • Guest
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #75 on: November 10, 2006, 04:40:00 pm »
A big Thank You for voting.

  • Guest
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2006, 01:23:00 pm »
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/195fdc04.jpg" alt=" - " />
 
  HUMUNGUS FOR GOVERNOR

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19717
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2006, 01:35:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:
  not happening...
It wasn't about him getting the appointment, it was the fact that while Bush had Pelosi in his office to talk about working together and being bipartisan, he asks the lame duck Senate to approve Bolton, which they couldn't get done with a Republican controlled Senate, and there is no way it will happen in January.
 
 So before everyone starts thinking that the President got the message loud and clear from the voters and fired Rummy, let's take a step back and think about who we're talking about here. He only hear's one voice - Dick Cheney's.
27>34

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2006, 02:11:00 pm »
From the Chicago Tribune-
 
 Confirm John Bolton
 
 Published November 14, 2006
 
 Even as President Bush and Democrats cheerfully chatted about "working together" after last week's power-shifting election, an old fight was resuming over Senate confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.
 
 Bolton has been in the job for 15 months, but he has been working under a recess appointment made by President Bush while Congress was out of session. Bush took that path after Democrats blocked a floor vote on Bolton's confirmation. A majority of the Senate appeared ready to support Bolton, but there weren't quite 60 votes to end a Democratic filibuster.
 
 In the interim, Bolton has proved he doesn't have horns. In fact, he has answered any questions about whether he has the right temperament and diplomatic skills for the job. He has worked to build consensus on the world's response to North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's nuclear program, the Middle East conflict and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
 
 He also has won over a key critic. Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who voted against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced in July that he would support the nomination now.
 
 But Bolton looks like he will be a casualty of the coming Democratic takeover of the Senate. His recess appointment expires when the next Congress convenes in January. President Bush has resubmitted Bolton's nomination, hoping for a vote this week. But Democrats won't budge. "I think we should go to the things that we can work together on," Sen. Harry Reid said (D-Nev.) on Sunday.
 
 In other words, the "bipartisanship" rhetoric didn't even survive a week.
 
 Bolton has played the role of a proper diplomat, but he has also been blunt about the tremendous need for UN reform in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal and the world body's continued coddling of police states on agencies such as the Commission on Human Rights.
 
 Bolton should be blunt about UN reform, a message the body doesn't like to hear. Such distinguished past ambassadors as Democratic Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick also were criticized for tough talk on occasion, even when their passion proved to be right on point.
 
 It is a bad time to have uncertainty about U.S. leadership at the UN, with matters such as Iran and North Korea before the body. If Democrats want to put some heft behind their post-election rhetoric about working with the White House, they will recognize that Bolton has proved himself in the job. And they will allow the Senate to vote on his confirmation.
 
 Copyright ¬© 2006, Chicago Tribune
OU812

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19717
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2006, 02:17:00 pm »
Are we just going to move our email conversation to the board?  Fine.
 
 Not one mention of his opposition to the U.N. doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Kofi‚??s "responsibility to protect" doctrine) ensuring the Security Council authorizes military action and forces U.N. members to accept greater responsibility when they ‚??intervene‚?Ě in countries where atrocities are taking place.
 
 Some folks call it the ‚??so Iraq doesn‚??t happen again‚?Ě doctrine.
27>34

Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2006, 02:23:00 pm »
Geeesh, you guys live in San Francisco. Fucking act like it.  Put the emails about swinger parties, fetish clubs, drugs, and the hottest new gay/metrosexual bars on here. Not your goddamn political conversations that will forever identify you as an ex-DC doofus.   ;)

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2006, 02:24:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
  Are we just going to move our email conversation to the board?  Fine.
 
 Not one mention of his opposition to the U.N. doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Kofi‚??s "responsibility to protect" doctrine) ensuring the Security Council authorizes military action and forces U.N. members to accept greater responsibility when they ‚??intervene‚?Ě in countries where atrocities are taking place.
 
 Some folks call it the ‚??so Iraq doesn‚??t happen again‚?Ě doctrine.
alot of good the u.n. is doing across this globe. . .rwanda, bosnia, sudan, zimbabwe. . .what benefit is there to seeking u.n. authorization to do anything if it takes 5 years for them to address it?  when programs they set up are often fraught with corruption?  the u.n. is an outdated relic of the cold war that no longer serves its original purpose.
OU812

Sir HC

  • Member
  • Posts: 4059
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2006, 02:24:00 pm »
In other words, the "bipartisanship" rhetoric didn't even survive a week.
 
 That is a very loaded statement.  The reason that a vote won't happen is Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican, said he will not vote yeah in committee.
 
 From there, trying to shove something through before the other party takes power is where bipartisanship ended, before the senate did anything.

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19717
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2006, 02:42:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Weird Little Self Loathing Man:
   Not your goddamn political conversations that will forever identify you as an ex-DC doofus.      ;)    
Everybody knows that all the good policy that goes through DC started in SF 10-20 years earlier.  That's why I moved out here!
 
 Which reminds me, we lowered the pot sentences this week.
 
 
Quote
It would set nearly all crimes involving marijuana as the lowest law enforcement priority for city police. And, it would direct police to essentially ignore most marijuana offenses unless they involve minors, acts of violence, driving under the influence or the sale or distribution of pot on public property or within view of public property.
 
 In a related move, the board voted to create an 11-member committee to monitor enforcement of marijuana crimes.
 
 Both marijuana measures were approved with the blessing of police officials.
 
 Some residents objected to the law enforcement measure, saying the marijuana trade occurs along with other criminal activity that undermines the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The legislation was sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, whose term will end in 2008, and is rumored to be interested in running for the state assembly seat that will be vacated by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno. He introduced the legislation in August at the behest of groups pushing for the national decriminalization of marijuana.
27>34

anarchist

  • Member
  • Posts: 363
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #84 on: November 16, 2006, 04:24:00 pm »
i voted 3 x's

Sir HC

  • Member
  • Posts: 4059
Re: Did you vote?
« Reply #85 on: November 16, 2006, 09:50:00 pm »
Was out there last summer, at the movie theater in the Haight the woman selling tickets was toking up, everywhere else you could smell the sweet leaf, it was shocking to an east coaster.  Especially since you don't really see cigarette smokers out there.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Weird Little Self Loathing Man:
   Not your goddamn political conversations that will forever identify you as an ex-DC doofus.       ;)    
Everybody knows that all the good policy that goes through DC started in SF 10-20 years earlier.  That's why I moved out here!
 
 Which reminds me, we lowered the pot sentences this week.
 
   
Quote
It would set nearly all crimes involving marijuana as the lowest law enforcement priority for city police. And, it would direct police to essentially ignore most marijuana offenses unless they involve minors, acts of violence, driving under the influence or the sale or distribution of pot on public property or within view of public property.
 
 In a related move, the board voted to create an 11-member committee to monitor enforcement of marijuana crimes.
 
 Both marijuana measures were approved with the blessing of police officials.
 
 Some residents objected to the law enforcement measure, saying the marijuana trade occurs along with other criminal activity that undermines the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The legislation was sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, whose term will end in 2008, and is rumored to be interested in running for the state assembly seat that will be vacated by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno. He introduced the legislation in August at the behest of groups pushing for the national decriminalization of marijuana.
[/b]